People vs. Butiong Gr. No.

168932

Facts:
This case involves a man who had sexual intercourse with a woman who, although 29 years of age, was a mental retardate with the mentality of a six-
to seven-year old.

In the evening of October 7, 1998, AAA, then a 29-year-old mental

retardate, was invited by Butiong, her long-time neighbor, to go over There are four modes of committing the crime of rape as provided in
to his house because he would give her something. AAA obliged. He paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
locked the door as soon as she had stepped inside his house, and then applied in his case, namely:
took off his shorts and the shorts of AAA. He led her to the sofa,
where he had carnal knowledge of her. a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

Upon reaching home, AAA forthwith told her older sister what had b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
happened. Her sister brought AAA to the police station and later on to unconscious;
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). AAA underwent a series
of Psychological Test with result showed that she had a mild level of c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
mental retardation, and that her mental age was that of a child aged
from six to seven years. d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age, or is demented,
even though none of the circumstances first mentioned is present.
The RTC rendered judgment finding Butiong guilty of Rape.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape. Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
Rulings: No. 8353 because a mental retardate is not capable of giving her
Yes. Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or consent to a sexual act. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary,
intimidation, that is, against the will of the female. It is also committed it being sufficient for the State to establish, one, the sexual congress
without force or intimidation when carnal knowledge of a female is between the accused and the victim, and, two, the mental retardation of
alleged and shown to be without her consent. This understanding of the victim. It should no longer be debatable that rape of a mental
the commission of rape has been prevalent in both the common law retardate falls under paragraph 1, b), of Article 266-A, supra, because
and the statutory law systems.

Page 1 of 5
the provision refers to a rape of a female “deprived of reason,” a PEOPLE v. MACASPAC
phrase that refers to mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RODRIGO MACASPAC
G.R. No. 198954
February 22, 2017

FACTS

At around 8:00 in the evening of July 7, 1988, Macaspac along with

four other persons including one Robert Jebulan. In the course of their
drinking spree, an argument ensued between Macaspac and Jebulan. It
became so heated that, Macaspac uttered to the group: “Hintayin nyo
ako d’yan, wawalisin ko kayo, “and then left. After around three
minutes, Macaspac returned wielding a knife. He confronted and
taunted Jubulan, saying, “Ano?”. Jebulan simply replied, “Tama na”.
At that point, Macaspac suddenly stabbed Jebulan on the lower right
area of his chest and ran away. The others witnessed the stabbing of
Jebulan. He was rushed to the hospital but was rushed dead on arrival.

Macaspac initially invoked self-defense, testifying that he and Jebulan

had scuffed for the possession of the knife, and that he had then
stabbed Jebulan once he seized control of the knife. However, he later
on claimed that Jebulan had been stabbed by accident when he fell on
the knife. He denied being the person with whom Jebulan had the
argument, which he insisted had been between Barcomo and one
Danny. According to him, he tried to pacify their argument, but his
efforts angered Jebulan, who draw out the knife and tried to stab him.
He fortunately evaded the stab thrust of Jebulan, whom he struck with
a wooden chair to defend himself. The blow caused Jebulan to fall on
the knife, puncturing his chest.

Page 2 of 5
 determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
On February 19, 2008, the RTC found Macaspac guilty beyond consequences of his act.
reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to an imprisonment of
reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the CA affirmed conviction of The first and second requisites were established. But it is the essence
Macaspac with modification of the imposition of the civil liability. The of this circumstance that the execution of the criminal act be preceded
case elevated to the Supreme Court. by cool thought and reflection upon the resolve to carry out the
criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment. By quickly returning to the group with a knife, he let no
ISSUE appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry
out his criminal intent. It was as if the execution immediately followed
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming Macaspac’s conviction for the resolve to commit a crime. As such, the third requisite was absent.
murder on the ground that the Prosecution did not establish his guilt
for murder beyond reasonable doubt. Without the prosecution having sufficiently proved the attendance of
either treachery or evident premeditation, Macaspac was guilty only of
homicide for the killing of Jebulan. Macaspac shall suffer the
HELD indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
14 years, eight months and 1 day of reclusion temporal.
The Court sees no misreading by the RTC and the CA of the credibility
of the witnesses and the evidence of the parties. On the contrary, the Anent the liabilities, the Court deem a modification to be necessary to
CA correctly observed that inconsistencies had rendered Macaspac’s align with prevailing jurisprudence.
testimony doubtful as to shatter his credibility. The Court cannot
uphold the CA’s conclusion on the attendance of treachery.

According to the facts, he did not mount the attack with surprise
because the heated argument between him and the victim and his angry
threat of going back “to sweep them” had sufficiently forewarned the
latter of the impending lethal assault. The requisites for the
appreciation of evident premeditation are: (1) the time when the
accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit
the crime; and, the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the

Page 3 of 5
[Art. 14: Aggravating Circumstances, re: Treachery] When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, Rodolfo and
Romulo reported the incident to the police authorities. During trial, the
People of the Philippines vs. Juan Gonzales Escote G.R. No. 140756 two were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
April 4, 2003 robbery with homicide, and that treachery was present in the crime.
Juan and Victor assailed such decision. Hence, this case before the
FACTS: On September 28, 1996, at past midnight, bus driver Rodolfo
Supreme Court.
Cacaitan drove from the operator’s terminal at Pasay City to its
destination in Bolinao, Pangasinan. On board with him was Romulo ISSUES:
Digap, the bus conductor, along with some passengers (one of which
was SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr.). At Balintawak, 6 passengers boarded 1. Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that treachery was
the bus, including Juan Escote Jr. and Victor Acuyan. present in the commission of the crime.

When they were travelling along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan,

Juan and Victor stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced 2. Whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance
a holdup. Juan fired his gun upward to awaken and scare off the in robbery with homicide, and if yes, whether treachery may be
passengers. They accosted the passengers and divested them of their appreciated against Juan and Victor.
money and valuables, as well as the fares Romulo collected from the
passengers. They as well approached SPO1 Manio, asked for an
identification card and his service gun, uttering the words: “Pasensya HELD:
ka na Pare, papatayin ka naming, baril mo rin an[g] papatay sa iyo.” 1. No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that
To which Manio replied, “Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya ako.” treachery was present in the
However, they ignored Manio’s plea and shot him on the mouth, right
ear, chest and right side of his body. The robbers assured Rodolfo that commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following
if he follows their instructions, he will not be harmed. Along the essential elements are present: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim
overpass in Mexico, Pampanga, the robbers ordered Rodolfo to stop was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused
the bus, and there they alighted. The robbery was over in 25 minutes. consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or
forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the

Page 4 of 5
sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and
thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself. In the case at
bar, the victim suffered six wounds, one on the mouth, another on the
right ear, one on the

shoulder, another on the right breast, one on the upper right cornea of
the sternum and one above the right iliac crest. Juan and Victor were
armed with handguns. They first disarmed SPO1 Manio, Jr. and then
shot him even as he pleaded for dear life. When the victim was shot,
he was defenseless. He was shot at close range, thus insuring his death.
The victim was on his way to rejoin his family after a hard day's work.
Instead, he was mercilessly shot to death, leaving his family in grief
for his untimely demise.

2. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that treachery is a generic

aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of
homicide is killed by treachery. However, it may not be appreciated
against Juan and Victor for the reason that treachery was not alleged in
the Information filed, as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. In sum, even if treachery is
proven but it is not alleged in the Information, treachery cannot
aggravate the penalty for the crime.

Page 5 of 5